SnailyBoy Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) Does the Indiana 'Religious Freedom' law give free reign for businesses to discriminate against gay people? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32121317 Edited April 8, 2015 by SnailyBoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeh Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 404 - Page not found Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/01/indiana-religious-freedom_n_6984156.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted April 8, 2015 Author Share Posted April 8, 2015 Fixed.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 An interesting take on this from Spiked: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/indiana-why-we-must-be-free-to-discriminate/16840 "...discrimination is not always the social evil it is cracked up to be. The act of discriminating, of deciding to associate with a likeminded group of people, and to exclude those of a contrary mind, is actually a fundamental aspect of a liberal society. Campaign against that freedom, push for anti-discrimination legislation, call for ever-more stringent equality laws, and liberal society starts to unravel. Just as state-enforced discrimination is wrong because it violates people’s liberty to pursue their life as they see fit, so is state-enforced anti-discrimination, state-enforced integration, because it, too, violates people’s liberty to pursue their life as they see fit - to think, believe and associate freely. This ought not to be a surprising argument. Freedom of conscience, its dominant expression, religious freedom, and its result, the freedom to discriminate, ought to be fundamental aspects of any society that considers itself liberal, or, indeed, tolerant. It means that when it comes to the free association of men and women in society, the civil power, state or otherwise, has no, well, power. People should be free to associate with those sharing the same beliefs, and to exclude those who don’t. This was certainly the view of the Founding Fathers’ great influence, John Locke, who argued in A Letter Concerning Toleration that while the civil power ought to be concerned with protecting civil interests, from individuals’ liberty and health, and ‘the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like’, it had no jurisdiction when it came to someone’s faith, how they tended to the ‘salvation of [their] souls’. Likewise, it has no power over the ‘voluntary societies of men’, or churches, that were established on the basis of individual’s shared beliefs. Who was to be included and excluded was up to the society itself, not an external body: ‘ince the joining together of several members into this church-society… is absolutely free and spontaneous, it necessarily follows that the right of making its laws can belong to none but the society itself; or, at least (which is the same thing), to those whom the society by common consent has authorised thereunto.’... ...it is precisely the abolition of social discrimination that today’s identity-conscious, equality-law pushing gangs of the outraged are seeking. In every act of discrimination in the social sphere they see evidence of deviant thought, beliefs that run counter to the consensus, that threaten the consensus, and that therefore must be extinguished. ‘Indiana is not protecting religious freedom’, writes one commentator. ‘[indiana’s lawmakers] are protecting a very specific brand of zealotry. They are protecting bigotry.’ And bigotry, as heterodox beliefs are now uniformly called, be they religious or otherwise, must be stamped out, ideally with a raft of legislation and the backing of an equalities commission. This is the intolerant trajectory of what passes for contemporary liberalism. As liberals from Locke to Arendt recognised, the assault on social discrimination is an assault on our ability to think and act in accordance with our beliefs." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Does the Indiana 'Religious Freedom' law give free reign for businesses to discriminate against gay people? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32121317 You are meant to offer your own opinion not just post a link and ask what others think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheff71 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 An example given in the link is: "Is Indiana law anti-gay? critics say yes, it means a florist could refuse to provide flowers for a gay wedding, for example" Couldn't a florist refuse to provide flowers for a heterosexual wedding too? Does the florist not have any choice on who they sell to, whether straight, gay, white, black, able bodied, disabled... in other words, if the florist finds a couple as obnoxious or deceitful - people they do not want to do business with - does it make a difference if they're straight or gay? If the florist was an openly gay person, would they be able to cater for just gay weddings if they so wished, or would they be forced to give equal service to the non-gay community? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuttsie Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 An example given in the link is: "Is Indiana law anti-gay? critics say yes, it means a florist could refuse to provide flowers for a gay wedding, for example" Couldn't a florist refuse to provide flowers for a heterosexual wedding too? Does the florist not have any choice on who they sell to, whether straight, gay, white, black, able bodied, disabled... in other words, if the florist finds a couple as obnoxious or deceitful - people they do not want to do business with - does it make a difference if they're straight or gay? If the florist was an openly gay person, would they be able to cater for just gay weddings if they so wished, or would they be forced to give equal service to the non-gay community? Or bus travellers:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 An example given in the link is: "Is Indiana law anti-gay? critics say yes, it means a florist could refuse to provide flowers for a gay wedding, for example" Couldn't a florist refuse to provide flowers for a heterosexual wedding too? Does the florist not have any choice on who they sell to, whether straight, gay, white, black, able bodied, disabled... in other words, if the florist finds a couple as obnoxious or deceitful - people they do not want to do business with - does it make a difference if they're straight or gay? If the florist was an openly gay person, would they be able to cater for just gay weddings if they so wished, or would they be forced to give equal service to the non-gay community? Maybe they should have a sign in the window to say 'No Blacks' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Maybe they should have a sign in the window to say 'No Blacks' No blacks, no irish, no gays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now